OTTAWA — In his testimony on Wednesday, Gerald Butts attempted to reframe allegations that the Prime Minister’s Office had inappropriately pressured the former attorney general to offer a deferred prosecution to engineering giant SNC-Lavalin.

His remarks in some ways contradicted the bombshell testimony last week by the former justice minister, Jody Wilson-Raybould, and leaves a few lingering questions. Here are four of the most pertinent quibbles, claims, and denials that have yet to be clarified.

Was the attorney general “obligated to bring fresh eyes to new evidence” in the specific case of SNC-Lavalin?

This is one of the central questions that could determine whether the Prime Minister’s Office placed inappropriate pressure on the former justice minister. Jody Wilson-Raybould has said that she faced months of sustained pressure to reverse a decision made by federal prosecutors on Sept. 4, which effectively barred the company from negotiating a remediation agreement.

Butts on Wednesday said those conversations were justified in light of potential “new evidence” provided by the company to federal prosecutors. This new evidence, in a case like this, could involve anything from potential job losses to deeper financial hits the company could take due to such a decision.

However, observers like Jennifer Quaid, a law professor at the University of Ottawa, doubt the information was materially different from what had already been provided — and would therefore not require “fresh” eyes or a second judicial opinion.

“I just don’t buy the suggestion that there was a constant source of new information that was being provided to the prosecutors,” Quaid said. “What it sounds like is, there was a constant stream of repetition.”

She warned that Canada is at risk of setting a bad precedent if attempts to supply “new” information are instinctually accepted by prosecutors, exposing them to endless counter-arguments. Quaid also stressed that it is impossible for the public to assess whether the information was indeed new, as it is confidential.

The company sent information to the director of public prosecutions in September, records show, after prosecutors had notified the minister on Sept. 4 that they were likely to reject its bid for a remediation agreement.

What was the nature of conversations between the PMO and two of its top legal advisers, Mathieu Bouchard and Elder Marques?

At one point in the hearing, Butts flatly denied there was a “co-ordinated effort” within the PMO to pressure the former justice minister.

“One would expect that if such an effort existed, then I would have been aware of it and I was not, and I know the people involved very well,” Butts said. “Mathieu Bouchard and Elder Marques are incredibly accomplished lawyers of sterling reputations and it is inconceivable to me that they would engage in this sort of behaviour.”

Gerald Butts, former principal secretary to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, testifies before the House of Commons justice committee on March 6, 2019.Fred Chartrand/The Canadian Press

Marques and Bouchard were two of the leading advisers on the SNC-Lavalin file who met with members of the justice ministry and others following the Sept. 4 decision. On Wednesday, Conservative committee member Lisa Raitt put forward a motion to make public the messages between some of the highest officials in the PMO as a way to clarify any explicit efforts to pressure the minister that might have occurred. The committee’s Liberal majority voted the motion down.

In her testimony last week, Wilson-Raybould said she was “irritated” by a Nov. 22 meeting with Marques and Bouchard, saying they continued to press her on the SNC-Lavalin matter even after she had made it clear that she would not direct federal prosecutors to reverse their decision.

“I said no,” she said. “My mind had been made up and they needed to stop — enough.”

Would the absence of a remediation agreement for SNC-Lavalin really cost “a minimum” of 9,000 jobs?

As allegations against Prime Minister Justin Trudeau deepened last week, he stuck to the claim that his sole motivation was to protect Canadian jobs. Butts repeated that refrain on Wednesday. “When 9,000 jobs are at stake, it’s a public policy problem,” he said.

However, analysts and observers suggest the true number could be much lower than that.

“I don’t think 9,000 people lose their jobs,” said Frederic Bastien, analyst at Raymond James based in Vancouver. He said SNC-Lavalin could lose a “significant chunk” of its Canadian workforce, but said it was impossible to put a precise number on it.

A number of jobs would likely remain. The company holds long-term contracts to refurbish two Ontario nuclear facilities, and to maintain a sizeable portion of the SkyTrain in Vancouver, among other projects. It has already won a bid to build a major rail line in Montreal. Also, administrative staff in its Montreal headquarters would be more likely to retain their positions, as the company has a large international portfolio.

By comparison, according the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, the oil and gas sector lost about 60,000 direct jobs between 2014 and 2017.

Butts did not provide specific evidence to justify the 9,000 figure, but said he was briefed by Finance officials on the matter several times.

Why was Jody Wilson-Raybould shuffled out of the justice minister position in the first place?

Wilson-Raybould was shuffled out of Justice and into Veterans Affairs in January. The Liberals have long held that Wilson-Raybould would still be justice minister if Scott Brison had not decided to step down.

“That is a fact, and facts are very stubborn things,” Butts said Wednesday.

Wilson-Raybould said she was “a little bit shocked” by the decision to shuffle her out of the justice ministry, according to an account by Butts, who said she was clearly upset.

He said that if it were not for that decision, the SNC-Lavalin situation would have never come to light. Butts provided a detailed account of the thinking behind the January cabinet shuffle, which he said he hoped would be “tidy,” but did not provide specifics around why Wilson-Raybould in particular was demoted.

When my assistant said there was a call from the White House, I picked up, said 'Hello' and started to ask if this was a prank

This Week's Flyers

Comments

Postmedia is pleased to bring you a new commenting experience. We are committed to maintaining a lively but civil forum for discussion and encourage all readers to share their views on our articles. We ask you to keep your comments relevant and respectful. Visit our community guidelines for more information.